On the Isle of Man, you have speed limits in built-up areas and none outside them. What if the UK adopted this policy? Would it really be carnage on the roads? Supposing that the speed limits as posted were advisory, or discretionary - would that be a good thing? The obsession with speed control, rather than obsessing about poor driving standards and skill levels, is surely because its enforcement has been so robotised. There are cameras everywhere, automatic ticketing systems, panels that continually light up and admonish you. Aren't you all now a bit bored of this, or do you think we are all much safer and better off as a result? Some roads I did today in France have limits on them just because there are corners. So just when it is getting interesting to tip your Ducati into them you are in fact supposed to go around them bolt upright at about 30 mph. Needless to say, when I realised it was just for my safety and on the assumption that I don't know how to ride a bike, I studiously ignored them - as, I hope, would any Ducati owner. At the end of the day, how many people on here bought a Ducati so that they could do 60 on an open road (irrespective of conditions) and 70 on the motorway?
Interesting what you say about them having limits because of the corners, I think this is happening in the uk with a lot of 60's been changed to 50's because a few nobs have crashed not because it's a built up area or any other dangers. Drivers and riders should be able to read the road and know what speed is safe for a corner without the speed limit being dropped to keep idiots safe
I think that speed limits have been "dropped" in a lot of areas stealthily. 60's are down to 50. 50's are down to 40. 40's down to 30 and 30's down to 20 in a few areas/situations. And I believe that it's done just to catch people out and raise revenues. Everything is about cash nowadays. Revenue is king. This is what happens when you follow the US model.
Road speed limits are just an expedient proxy measure. Offences like driving dangerously, without due care, etc are difficult to catch, hard to prove in court, and expensive to administer. Guilt is largely a matter of opinion, so a lot of defendants plead not guilty and many of those get off. Speed limit offences by contrast are totally arbitrary, objectively measurable, easy to prove, and difficult to contest - they are therefore cheap and simple to administer. The whole basis of the speed limit system has nothing to do with the notion that there is anything wrong as such with driving along a stretch of road at any particular speed. Rather it is a cheap and simple proxy, serving as an expedient substitute for the real purpose - which is of course stopping people from driving dangerously.
The safety mantra saps the will to live. In the nanny state where risk of any kind is to be ruthlessly sought out and eliminated we are breeding a generation of zombies who can't see the wood for the trees. Doing it safely or not at all is the new mission statement. There is a common misconception that because all accidents could have been avoided that all accidents can be avoided. Risk = Consequence * Probability and it can never be zero. Risk is fun FFS.
If I had been on my bike this morning..............well.............. Country lane, maybe 6m wide......high banks either side.... ....proceeding very carefully in the car because of tractors and nobs with bl**dy bikes tied to backs of cars.... ............(why do they do that? Why can't they just hire a bike at their destination?)......... ....went round a left hand bend...........sure enough, there was another nob doing a 20 point turn with an estate car fitting the full width of the road between the banks.........even at about 15mph, the ABS kicked in. I despair over the driving standards in this county....... AL
